Locals petition against proposed Drysdale service station

The Drysdale & Clifton Springs Community Association (DCSCA) has launched a petition calling on the City of Greater Geelong (CoGG) to reverse its recent decision to allow a Caltex service station in a Drysdale Rural Living Zone.

CoGG is supporting Caltex franchisee Milemaker Petroleum's proposal to build a service station at the junction of Drysdale High Street and Jetty Road.

In response, DCSCA members and supporters have asked the Victorian Civil and Administrative tribunal (VCAT) to review CoGG's support for the proposal; and they have launched a petition against the proposed service station. The petition reads as follows:

Service station at the Jetty Road roundabout? No thanks!

We the undersigned request the City of Greater Geelong to cancel permit 1565/2013.

We believe: -

• There has been inadequate community consultation in the Planning Process.
• It is inappropriate in a Rural Living Zone and inconsistent with the Drysdale Clifton Springs Structure Plan.
• It will increase traffic congestion in an already congested area, cause major traffic safety issues and greatly increase the danger to cyclists.
• It will cause significant environmental issues: underground fuel storage tanks inevitably cause long-term issues and toxins could enter the underground water system and pollute the nearby bodies of water.
• It will severely compromise the rural amenity of the approach into the Drysdale Clifton Springs Township.
• Should a service station be required, it should be located in a commercial area.

 Name
Address/email
Signed

The petition will be submitted by the Drysdale & Clifton Springs Community Association Secretary, Mr. Neil McGuinness, e-mail mcgni@bigpond.com

Community concerns ignored
The council's support for the service station ignores widespread concerns in the community and contradicts the council's own Structure Plan for Drysdale & Clifton Springs; and many in the local community are angry at the council's high-handed approach to this issue.*

Indeed, CoGG's consultations around the proposal have been so poor that many local people learnt of the proposal only after CoGG had declared its support for it and granted a planning permit.**

DCSCA Secretary Neil McGuinness said, "Lake Lorne, McLeod's Waterholes and green spaces  all contribute to our townships' distinctive rural ambience; and the thoughtful location of shops and services have maintained its village atmosphere. All of this is well worth preserving - as the council's Structure Plan for the area emphasises.

"Locals would be very distressed, he said, "if the horses that currently occupy the site of the proposed service station were replaced by a hazardous eyesore surrounded by dangerous, congested traffic."


* See "Council dismisses environmental and economic objection to service station" (13 March 2014); and "Council rebuffs service station objectors" (17 April 2014) on this blog.
** See "Council restricts public comment on proposed new service station in Drysdale" (29 January 2014) on this blog.

Birdsong and bylaws don't mix

Kurrawong

Kurrawongs and Kookaburras are currently delighting Drysdale residents in the vicinity of McLeod's Waterholes.

The large, charcoal-grey Kurrawongs have bright yellow eyes and flashes of white on their tail and wings. Allegedly, their name comes from their musical call, but you need some imagination to hear it! It's been several months since they've been in the area, because Kurrawongs are migratory, moving between feeding and breeding grounds.

The reappearance of the Kurrawongs in the area coincides with a visit by a group of Kookaburras. Interesting birds, Kookaburras are notable for their socialised child care! Kookaburras live in groups and in each group, one or two adults will look after young birds from several pairs of adults - an efficient, cost-effective approach to child care of which, no doubt, federal treasurers would approve! Kookaburras are migratory, too, but a group will generally move around a regular route.

Kookaburra

A 'wildlife corridor' - who needs it?
The recurring presence of the Kurrawongs and Kookaburras in the area shows the importance of the 'nature corridor' formed by the stretch of trees and shrubs along Griggs Creek that crosses Jetty Road and continues to McLeod's Waterholes. Many other birds, including Galahs, Lorikeets and Red-rumped Parrots (a.k.a. Grass Parrots) also fly regularly along that corridor; and Wattle Birds and Honeyeaters are semi-permanent residents.

Until recently, the corridor had a 'spur' of some trees at the junction of Jetty Road and Wyndham Street, but these were destroyed to make way for the enlarged junction. These trees formed a local landmark, but the first that local people knew of the trees' fate was when they awoke to the sound of chain saws cutting them down. Among the trees was an old Willow tree, described by the contractor's supervisor as 'just a weed'!

Doing what's legal - or doing what's right?
When the City of Greater Geelong's supervising engineer was asked why the council hadn't consulted local people about the trees' planned destruction, he replied, 'We don't have to'. He meant that the council has a legal obligation to consult the public about changes to bylaws, etc (e.g. re-zoning), but has no legal obligation to consult the public about any 'non-legal' issues - and destroying these trees was one of those 'non-legal' issues.

So the council's guiding principle isn't 'What is right?' but 'What can we get away with?' A council's operations offer many opportunities to strengthen local democracy and build citizenship by involving local people in council decisions that affect them. For this council, however, local democracy appears to mean 'electing a councillor every four years'; and citizenship appears to mean 'paying your rates on time'.

Drysdale Cemetery safe from development

DCSCA hosted a meeting on Monday 19^th November at SpringDale, at which Darryl Thomas, CEO of the Geelong Cemeteries Trust described the Trust's role.

The Trust maintains the 13 local cemeteries in the Geelong region (with no government funding); individual graves are owned privately and their maintenance is the owner's responsibility.

Local people at the meeting were concerned about the future of the Cemetery, in particularly the vacant land adjoining Clifton Springs Road. Daryl said that the Drysdale cemetery has enough land to accommodate current demand for 15 to 20 years. Daryl said that  the vacant land is zoned as 'cemetery' and that the Trust has no plans to ask for the land to be rezoned and/or to sell it to housing developers. He added that before the Trust could sell the land, it would have to consult the local community extensively.

The vacant land in question would accommodate about ten thousand graves - nowhere near enough to meet the area's expected population growth. The Bellarine Peninsula in general is expected to see a major increase in population in the coming years and each of its local cemeteries (including Drysdale's) has only about 20–25 years worth of grave sites available. Consequently, the Trust is looking for land on the Bellarine for a new Bellarine Cemetery.

A business bypass for Drysdale?

2013 will be a crucial year for DCSCA's campaign for a Drysdale bypass. The state government funds bypasses and in 2013 all sides in state politics will be preparing for the state elections in 2014, in which the seat of Bellarine - which includes Drysdale & Clifton Springs - is likely to be a marginal seat. Consequently, the major parties will be especially keen to grant local voters' requests - including a Drysdale bypass! (In the 2010 state election, Ms Lisa Neville [ALP] held the seat by just 2.74% after preferences.)

Despite the growing support for a Drysdale bypass, it won't necessarily - and by itself - improve the quality of life in the town. Indeed, as it takes away traffic, a bypass could also take away trade and weaken the local economy. However, DCSCA has said consistently that with careful planning and preparation, a bypass could both relieve traffic and boost local businesses. To start that planning and preparation, we need to understand how bypasses affect small towns; and we need to see the bypass as part of local economic development.

Understanding how bypasses affect small towns

There isn't much research online about how bypasses affect small towns and what there is comes mostly from the USA. With that it mind, the research shows that Drysdale can grasp the benefits of a bypass and avoid the threats if it takes some simple practical steps:

• A town with a distinct, attractive identity is likely to find that it becomes more attractive to visitors as the bypass reduces its through traffic.
• A town with good road signage can counter drivers' tendency to stay on major roads - including a bypass.
• A town with a bypass has better links to major roads, stimulating adjacent industrial growth, with positive 'knock on' benefits to local businesses.
• A town is less likely to suffer economically from a bypass if its economy is strong, if it is an existing trade centre and if its local government has an appropriate economic development strategy.

Seeing the bypass as part of local economic development

In the City of Greater Geelong's 'Structure Plan for Drysdale & Clifton Springs', economic development consists of opening some more shops and a couple of motels. However, shops and motels won't offer local people the high-skill, high-wage careers that currently attract them to Geelong or Melbourne. Further, the council's plan to massively expand the Leopold shopping centre may threaten the future of Drysdale's existing shops, let alone any new ones.

DCSCA regards a Drysdale bypass as part of a broader alternative vision of economic development in the north Bellarine. That vision is centred on a new light industrial precinct in Murradoc Road, to be created in three stages:

1. Open up the area north of Murradoc Road for commercial development by creating new access roads into it.

2. Extend Murradoc Road's existing 'business/industrial' zoning eastwards to Clarendon Road.

3. Create tree-lined service roads on the north and south verges of Murradoc Road to offer easier delivery access, plus imaginative outdoor dining and performance spaces to attract pedestrians and effectively extend the centre of Drysdale eastwards.

Such a new precinct would offer new businesses easy access to major roads via the proposed Drysdale bypass, which will cross Murradoc Road near Clarendon Road; and business trade to and from Melbourne on the proposed Portarlington ferry wouldn't be delayed in a congested Drysdale High Street. The outcome would be a greater diversity and quality of jobs than the council's Structure Plan could ever offer; and the positive 'knock on' effects of the growth in light industry would be within the grasp of local businesses.

The future of Drysdale - have your say!

The City of Greater Geelong is inviting public comment by 29 June 2012 on its draft Urban Design Framework for Drysdale Town Centre.

The draft Framework explores the potential growth of the town centre, its look and feel and its accessibility to pedestrians and vehicles.

Getting it right this time?
The draft Framework is the result of a very positive two-day consultation with local people last year. A previous 'consultation' exercise about the future of the town centre was criticized heavily by participants - including DCSCA - for ignoring local people's views. It would be nice to think that the council learned something in the process.

Copies of the draft Framework are available from the council's Customer Service Centre in Hancock Street, Drysdale and at the council's web site:
www.geelongaustralia.com.au/council/yoursay/consult/item/8cf0c94619f1ce3.aspx

Information sessions
Council officers will hold two informal information sessions to introduce the plan and hear locals' reactions to it. These sessions will be at the Drysdale Senior Citizens Club, 2-8 Wyndham Street, Drysdale:
Monday 18 June 2012 4.30 - 6.30pm
Saturday 23 June 2012 10am – 12pm

If you can't attend either session, have a look at the draft Framework and tell the council what you think of it. If DCSCA can help, just ask us.

A Drysdale bypass - a new heartbeat for the North Bellarine!

As part of its campaign for a Drysdale bypass, the Drysdale & Clifton Springs Community Association (DCSCA) held a successful public meeting on May 2 at SpringDale Neighbourhood Centre.

The proposed Drysdale bypass will, effectively, run between the Jetty Road roundabout and the Geelong-Portarlington Road at its junction with Whitcombes Road, but speakers at the meeting emphasised that far more people than just Drysdale residents will benefit from a Drysdale bypass. (Click on the map to enlarge it.) The population of the north Bellarine is set to increase enormously, yet no major roads are planned to accommodate the increased traffic. The resulting traffic congestion in Drysdale will lengthen people's travelling time from Portarlington, St. Leonards and Indented Head to Geelong and Melbourne; and it will also make the proposed Portarlington to Melbourne ferry a far less attractive option for commuters from Geelong. DCSCA is seeking support for the bypass campaign from community associations in other Bellarine towns and DCSCA President Doug Carson told the meeting that the St. Leonards Community Association has expressed its support already for the campaign.

Counting vehicles
Vic Roads would be responsible for building the Drysdale bypass and the Victorian state government will be responsible for the bill! Vic Roads already owns about 50% of the land on which it would build the Drysdale bypass and it monitors traffic in Drysdale regularly. Vic Roads have stated that the traffic capacity of Drysdale High Street is 24,000 vehicles a day - at which point a bypass becomes a necessity in their view. In mid-2011, Vic Roads found that 18,000 vehicles a day use the High Street.

In other words, a year ago, the traffic flow through Drysdale was 2/3 of the 'tipping point' for a bypass. Since then, the local population has increased, as it will continue to. The first of the 1,500 houses in Stage One of the Jetty Road Growth Area (just north of the Jetty Road roundabout) have started to appear; with more new houses to follow in the 300-lot Central Walk estate (just south of Murradoc Road). At this rate of population growth, if work on the bypass started today, it would probably be completed just as the population reached the Vic Roads 'tipping point' of 24,000 vehicles a day using Drysdale High Street.

The current planned route of the bypass was drawn up before the massive increase in local population and some people at the meeting were concerned that the current route may pose traffic risks to local residents, to the schools off Andersons Road and to people attending the proposed sports/recreation precinct in Grubb Road. There was also concern about potential traffic noise and it was suggested that at least part of the bypass could be set into a cutting to reduce noise. Finally, there was agreement that rather than creating just a two-lane road suitable for trucks, Vic Roads should build a freeway-style bypass along the lines of the Geelong Ring Road.


A bigger picture
The meeting heard that a Drysdale bypass is part of a broader vision of economic development in the north Bellarine. At the heart of the vision is a new light industrial precinct in Murradoc Road, offering a diversity of business and employment opportunities. The proposed bypass will cross Murradoc Road at its eastern end near Clarendon Road, creating excellent road access into and out of the precinct.

The light industrial precinct would be created in three stages:
1. Open up the area north of Murradoc Road for development by creating new access roads into it; and realign the roundabout at Murradoc's western end to make it less 'tight' for large trucks that currently risk tipping over.
2. Extend the existing 'business/industrial' zoning at Murradoc Road's western end eastwards to Clarendon Road
3. Create tree-lined service roads on the north and south verges of Murradoc Road to offer delivery easier access. These service roads could also feature outdoor dining and performance spaces which, with imaginative lighting and shelters, would make the area much more attractive to pedestrians and effectively extend the centre of Drysdale eastwards.

The broad ideas behind the light industrial precinct emerged from a two-day workshop held at SpringDale in December 2011 at which local people discussed various options for redesigning Drysdale's town centre with council officers, architects and planning experts. (See 'A new future for central Drysdale?" [14 December 2011] on this blog.)

Leave Beacon Point alone ... almost

Close neighbours of the Beacon Point Reserve in Clifton Springs want it left just as it is ... apart from some improvements.

On 28 March, around twenty people met at Drysdale's SpringDale Neighbourhood Centre to discuss a proposed Master Plan for the Reserve. The meeting was called by the City of Greater Geelong's Recreation and Open Space Unit and by Thompson Berrill Landscape Design, engaged by CoGG as consultants to create the Master Plan.

Many of the people attending the meeting were members of the Beacon Point Friends - a group that emerged from a DCSCA Public Meeting in 2010. Everyone said that they like the Reserve's peace and tranquility and the opportunities it offers for 'passive recreation' such as walking (with or without a dog!), kite flying or just taking-in the panoramic view. Some improvements were suggested, ranging in scale from more frequent mowing, through planting some trees for shade, providing steps down to the foreshore, through to building a toilet block.

Caught in a bind
As the residents suggested improvements, it soon became apparent that they were caught in a bind: improving the Reserve will increase its attractiveness, prompting increased use and, perhaps, reducing the peace and tranquility which residents value so much and want to retain. Something as minor as countering the current infestation of blanket weed by, for example, mowing more frequently and/or re-seeding with grass will make the area safer to walk on - especially for people unsteady on their feet - attracting more people to walk there.

Even leaving the Reserve as it is won't prevent it from attracting more visitors, because the number of open spaces in Clifton Springs and Drysdale is reducing, as the council rezones one after another to allow still more housing. As several people at the meeting stressed, the Beacon Point Reserve is now the only major public open space left in Clifton Springs. As rezoning proceeds, each remaining open space increases in value - both economic and social.

As an illustration: in 2010, DCSCA supported residents in the Spring Street area of Clifton Springs in their successful fight to prevent the council turning their open public space into a housing estate. At the time, ward councillor John Doull said that the council estimated that the land in question was worth more than a million dollars, so the council didn't want to see it 'locked up' as Open Space for community use.

Keep our open spaces
The Beacon Point Reserve is part of DCSCA's Open Spaces Network - a program to preserve and enhance open spaces in Drysdale & Clifton Springs, protected from development, each with its own ‘Friends’ group and all linked by a network of cycling/walking trails.

The creation of the Beacon Point Reserve Master Plan is already late. On 4 August 2011, ward councillor John Doull told DCSCA that the Master Plan would be completed by December 2011 and that in his view, the Reserve should be essentially an open space with minimal ‘infrastructure’ (e.g., a toilet block, a BBQ) and, perhaps, a discrete ‘artistic/sculptural’ element.

The meeting at SpringDale heard that a Draft Plan will be presented to a second consultation meeting for comment, before being submitted to the council for approval and then made available for comment by the broader community.

Waive that Charge or it's 'wave goodbye'!

There is growing astonishment at City of Greater Geelong (CoGG) councillors' unanimous decision to compel residents of Drysdale's Central Road area to pay thousands of dollars each for a developer's drain.

The councillors' decision was reinforced by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Appeal Tribunal (VCAT), to which residents appealed - and lost. The residents have nowhere else to go. VCAT's decsion can be appealed in the Supreme Court, but this would be an extremely expensive undertaking - specially for this group of people, which includes many retirees on fixed incomes.

Many of the residents now fear that they will only be able to pay their 'contribution' to the cost of the drain by selling their homes and leaving the area.

Why pay for someone else's drain?
The drain will service a retirement village planned by Melbourne-based property developer Pinnacle Holdings, yet the council wants local households to contribute - via the 'Special Charge' scheme - between $2,000 and $250,000 each towards the cost. The residents have argued that since the drain will enable Pinnacle Holdings to build and profit from its retirement village, Pinnacle Holdings should pay for it. The council has responded that while the drain's primary purpose is to service the proposed retirement village, its presence will enable nearby residents to sub-divide and sell their properties at a profit - a 'special benefit' as the council calls it.

(For the background, see, 'VCAT to examine Council's "Special Charge" scheme' [January 13] and 'VCAT tells residents, "pay for developer's drain"!' [February 29] on this blog.)

Growing interest
The Geelong Advertiser ran a story about the issue ('Drysdale residents face million-dollar plumbing bill', by Shane Fowles) on Friday 2 March. The article said that VCAT Vice-President Michael Macnamara had made it clear that while the residents had no case in law, he had considerable sympathy for their position. It quoted Mr. Macnamara as follows:
'The overall tone of much of what was said on behalf of the ratepayers was that the council had in effect sold out to the developer and sold the applicant ratepayers down the river in the process. ... I see the force of what has been said in that respect and express my utmost sympathy for these ratepayers in their unhappy situation.'

The Advertiser article also said that Mr. Macnamara had said that he was 'inclined to think' that that the benefits of the proposed drain wasn't woth what the residents are being charged. In the Advertiser's online forum associated with its story on 2 March, most commentators expressed astonishment that an elected council could treat its citizens this way.

On the evening of March 2, Channel Nine News also ran an item about the VCAT decision and the 'Special Charge'. On Wednesday March 7, Channel 9's A Current Affair ran an item about the issue, interviewing several local people. The City of Greater Geelong was notable for its absence from the story. To see the ACA story, go to the 'Why live in Drysdale' blog: http://drysdale-victoria.blogspot.com.au/

VCAT tells residents, 'Pay for developer's drain'!

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) has just told residents of the Central Road area of Drysdale that they must pay the cost of a developer's drain.

DCSCA has been supporting Central Road residents who have been fighting a unanimous decision by City of Greater Geelong (CoGG) councillors to compel them to pay for a drain for a developer's proposed retirement village. The residents must pay a 'Special Charge', because the council asserts that they will gain a 'special benefit' from the drain, i.e. the potential to subdivide their property and sell it for a profit.

On February 6, the residents took their case to VCAT, which reserved its judgment on the issue. (See ‘Council’s “Special Charge” not cut and dried’ on drycliftdays 8 February)

VCAT has now decided in favour of the council, saying that the 'Special Charge' would stand unless residents could prove that they would gain NO ‘special benefit’ from the drain - showing that there would be little ‘special benefit’ was not enough. Further, the VCAT judge accepted that the proposed drain is a public health issue because the 2 words ‘public health’ were in the initial report to council. CoGG described the drain as a matter of public health only after residents pointed out that, according to local government law, a scheme can't proceed if a majority of residents oppose it ... unless it's a matter of public health!

In an article about the Central Road issue in the Independent (3 February), CoGG's Manager of City Services, Gary Van Dreel was reported as saying that CoGG would levy the 'Special Charge' only when properties were sold or developed; and local ward councillor Rod Macdonald was reported as saying that existing owners could defer the ‘Special Charge’ if their properties remained undeveloped. However, neither of them mentioned that owners who defer paying the ‘Special Charge’ will face an even higher bill, because CoGG will charge them compound interest on the outstanding amount - at 5% for the first five years and then at 9 to 10% thereafter. So CoGG’s ‘benevolence’ in allowing residents to defer payment is, in fact, a means of compelling residents to pay even more money, even though when they do so, CoGG will have long acquitted itself of the debt.

Elections to the council will happen later this year. It will be interesting to listen to sitting councillors as they defend their unanimous decision to compel pensioners and retirees in the Central Road area to pay thousand of dollars per household for a developer's drain.

A new future for central Drysdale?

Local people, planning consultants and council officers sketched a new future for central Drysdale at a two-day 'Inquiry By Design' workshop on December 7-8 at SpringDale neighbourhood centre in Drysdale High Street.

Day one of the workshop started with an invitation to participants to identify what they thought were the good and bad features of the current town centre, especially in light of the town's increasing population. In the next session, participants suggested features of the town centre that needed to change - and those that should remain. People raised a variety of issues, including traffic congestion, pedestrian safety, the 'look and feel' of the town centre, poor public transport and the need to offer the expanding population a variety of jobs, rather than rely solely on shops and tourism. On day two, the consultants spent the morning collating all the material from day one's discussions into a presentation to the participants, which ran from 3.30-5.00 p.m.

Some new ideas
The consultants' presentation created great interest. It contained several radical proposals, including creating a permanent shelter for a farmers' market in the space between the side entrance of the Safeways complex and the rank of shops opposite; making the roundabout in front of the Drysdale Hotel pedestrian-controlled and diffusing traffic away from it by creating new linking roads (e.g. between Collins Street and Murradoc Road); ensuring that new buildings faced their streets, rather than back onto them; and making any expansion of Safeways contingent on the development of a 'civic centre' facing the green and rotunda. There were also proposals to make Murradoc Road more attractive, e.g. by creating a service road in front of the current light industrial units, landscaping both sides of the road, installing proper footpaths and encouraging 'al fresco' dining near to the Aldi site.

... and the bypass??
The council had asked the consultants to create a draft 'Masterplan' for the town centre, thereby excluding any considertion of the proposed Drysdale bypass. However, local people at the workshop insisted that any discussion about the town centre should include the issue of the bypass.

A Drysdale bypass would address many of the town's current problems, including traffic congestion and pedestrian safety. The need for a bypass has been increased significantly by the closure of the rubbish tip at Corio, sending still more heavy trucks carrying rubbish from the rest of Geelong through the town to the Drysdale tip. Also, a bypass at Murradoc Road's eastern end would offer very good transport links to Geelong, increasing the likelyhood that new businesses would want to establish themselves in Murradoc Road.

What next?
The consultants will collate their presentation and participants' responses into a detailed report, which they will submit to the City of Greater Geelong by the end of this year. In early 2012, the council will publish the report and its response to it as a draft 'Masterplan' for Drysdale town centre, on which it will invite comments from the community. After that public consultation, the council will publish a final 'Masterplan' for the town centre, which it will then seek to have included in the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme.

While the workshop was a success in its own terms, it was organised in a way made it almost impossible for certain types of people to attend:
People at work could only attend if they could afford to take take one or two days off work AND get permission to do so. This might not be a problem for middle class professionals, but it certainly would be for anyone else at work. Local business owners faced the same problem, of course.
Parents of young children couldn't easily set aside two days for a workshop and, even if they could, there were no child care arrangements in place to enable them to do so.
Parents of school-aged children couldn't necessarily arrange for someone to take their children to and from their school and, anyway, might not want their children returning to an empty house.
School students could only attend if they were able to take one or two days off school. This might be an attractive option to the students (!), but the absence of any young people at the workshop showed that it wasn't necessarily feasible.

DCSCA officers at the workshop did their best to think about what people in each of those absent groups might want to say about the future of the twon centre and to present those views effectively. However, nothing is as good as people presenting their own views and it's unfortunate that the workshop was arranged in such a way that they were unable to do so.

Lessons learned?
It's never possible to make arrangements that suit everybody, of course. However, DCSCA has criticised the council consistently for its inflexible approach to public consultation and has offered many positive suggestions for improvement, which have been ignored. With a little thought, the organisers of this workshop could have offered local people a variety of ways in which to participate, rather than having to turn up each day. This workshop offered many lessons concerning public participation - it remains to be seen whether the council applies those lessons in the next stage of this particular consultation process - inviting public comment on the draft 'Masterplan'.

DCSCA meets Cr. Rod Macdonald (7)

On 5 August, DCSCA Committee members met Councillor Rod Macdonald in Princess Street, Drysdale. This was the sixth of the quarterly meetings that DCSCA has initiated with the two City of Greater Geelong (CoGG) Councillors whose wards coincide with DCSCA's area - the other is Councillor John Doull, whom we met on 4 August at City Hall.

New DCSCA Committee 2011-2012
First, we told Cr. Doull that DCSCA had held its annual General Meeting on July 20, at which a new Committee was elected and told him the members of the 2011-2012 Committee. (To see the membership of the 2011-2012 DCSCA Committee, go to 'DCSCA's 2011 Annual General Meeting' on this blog, 25 July 2011.)

The 'Central Walk' development
Local residents have expressed concern to DCSCA about aspects of this development, for which advertising/promotion materials have recently started to appear in the local papers.* Residents are concerned about Central Walk because:

• it contradicts CoGG's Structure Plan for Drysdale & Clifton Springs and the design guidelines of the state government's Urban Growth Authority (For more on this, see 'Hullo Central Walk, goodbye Structure Plan' on this blog, 14 July 2011.)
• the advertising/promotion materials make it appear that the whole area is being developed as a single estate by a single developer, whereas ownership of the is split between several landowners. One of those landowners (Urban Land Developments) is driving the development, even though it doesn't own significant portions of the land involved
• the development will include the demolition of the properties at 27 Princess Street, which features many long-established trees that provide homes for a variety of native birds and animals. The Bellarine Catchment Network and Landcare are among local groups to have expressed an interest in turning the property into a community facility including, e.g., a nursery and community garden.
  

DCSCA has suggested that 27 Princess Street is declared part of the 'public open space' that is a required element of the Central Walk development; and that an equivalent parcel of the land currently designated as 'public open space' be released for development - in effect, a land swap. Cr. Macdonald said that he would discuss the proposal with CoGG's strategic planners, but cautioned that CoGG has formally approved the development as proposed - including the demolition of 27 Princess Street. Consequently, a formal application will have to be made (by the developer?) for the proposal to be varied to allow the land swap - and this could be an expensive business.

DCSCA is also concerned about the maintenance of the development's open space - especially its proposed 'wetlands'. Cr. Macdonald said that developers are responsible for maintaining open spaces in a development until two years after their creation, after which the council assumes responsibility.

Local economic development
We asked whether the council would extend the ‘Industrial’ zone in Murradoc Road so that it joined the site of the planned Drysdale bypass. Cr. Macdonald replied that the council would examine such a proposal only if it was part of a larger proposal concerning the zoning of that area of Drysdale; and only if someone applied for such a rezoning. (N.B. An area can be considered for rezoning and subsequent development only if at least 70% of the owners of the area request it. However, such support isn’t required for ‘infill’ development, i.e. a proposal that rezones and develops an area in line with the areas surrounding it.)

CoGG's 'bio-retention basins' (aka 'urban dams')
We referred to the recent fiasco at Ryan Court around one of these 'basins', when local residents asked DCSCA to support them in their dealings with the Council. We told Cr. Macdonald that we supported his intervention in the issue, which resulted in a decision to fill-in the dam. (For more information about Ryan Court, see 'Who you gonna call? Dam busters!' on this blog, 1 August 2011.)

However, we suggested that the episode raised council-wide issues. The 'basin' in Ryan Court was created to deal with the increased stormwater run-off from a nearby new housing estate and equivalent 'basins' are going to be associated with other new housing estates, such as those in Jetty Road and the Central Walk estate off Murradoc Road. Events at Ryan Court showed a) that the design of these devices is faulty and b) that council officers cannot specify how effective these devices are in filtering pollutants - their ostensible purpose. While supporting Cr. Macdonald's intervention in the issue, we suggested that its successful outcome cast doubt on whether the use of these dams had been thought-through sufficiently; and suggested that the council should think about the 'urban dam' in Ryan Court before deciding to create another elsewhere.

Ward boundaries Finally, we asked Cr. Macdonald where exactly the northern boundary is between Cheetham Ward (Cr. Macdonald) and Coryule Ward (Cr. Doull); he'd brought a detailed map showing that the boundary is the western side of an imaginary extension northwards of Jetty Road.

DCSCA's next quarterly meeting with Cr. Macdonald will be on Friday 4 November 2011 at 10.30 a.m. Any residents of the Drysdale/Clifton Springs area are welcome to ask DCSCA to raise any issue of concern with Cr. Macdonald.

* 'Central Walk' is the result of the passage last year of Amendment C103 to the City of Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, which rezoned the land bounded by Murradoc Road, Princess Street, Woodville Street and Clarendon Road in Drysdale and gave approval for a housing estate to be built there.

Hullo 'Central Walk', goodbye Structure Plan!

The recently released plans for the new Central Walk housing estate in Drysdale show that the estate will contradict several elements of the Structure Plan for Drysdale & Clifton Springs produced by the City of Greater Geelong (CoGG).

The land on which the estate will be built is bounded by Murradoc Road, Princess Street, Woodville Street and Clarendon Road. In the CoGG Structure Plan, this land is earmarked for high density housing and to that extent, building the estate is consistent with the Structure Plan. However, the Structure Plan states on several occasions that its intention is to retain the towns' traditional, rural character and to ensure a mix of accommodation. The plans for Central Walk show that it will meet neither of these intentions.

Central Walk developers Urban Land Developments claim that, 'Open space and greenery will feature prominently at Central walk and residents will enjoy the spoils (sic) of an extensive linear park, wetlands and central reserve ...' However, the plans show that the 'central reserve' is about the size of the neighbouring Aldi site; and while the 'extensive linear park, wetlands' is a welcome inclusion, it is just another way to describe the water course that flows through the land already and couldn't be built on anyway. Also, the plans suggest strongly that while Central Walk will be home to families, it will include no housing suitable for single people - elderly and young - who once again miss out on the chance to live independently in their community.

Further, CoGG has approved this 200-lot development while doing nothing to ensure that there are jobs available for the people who will live in it. This isn't the fault of Urban Land Developments - it's another instance of the council's lack of vision, which is turning our towns into 'dormitories' for Geelong and Melbourne. DCSCA believes that CoGG should be planning the economic development of our towns just as it is planning their physical and social development.

Finally, the lack of adequate public transport is forcing increasing numbers of people to drive cars to work, increasing the pressure on already crowded roads and, of course, increasing the emission of harmful greenhouse gases.

When the proposals for the estate were published last year, local residents had serious concerns about them. DCSCA's formal submission to the council highlighted the contradictions between the proposals and the Structure Plan. (We also criticised the council's poor public consultation on the issue.) Subsequently, we presented our arguments to a Planning Panel appointed by the state Planning Minister. The Panel recommended that the council approve the proposal, which it did.

CoGG has encouraged local people to participate in creating Structure Plans for their towns and tells them that these Plans will guide their area's development. However, the grand aspirations in these Structure Plans count for nothing as CoGG gives developers permission to cover the Peninsula with homogeneous housing estates, while ignoring the needs of single people and forcing increasing numbers of people to commute.

Council casual about failure in its governance

More than a month after DCSCA revealed attempts to fabricate the Minutes of a council meeting, the City of Greater Geelong has failed to address why its governance procedures allowed the attempt to happen.

On 28 January and February 7 2011, DCSCA revealed (on drycliftdays) attempts to fabricate the Minutes of the council meeting on 25 January 2011. The draft Minutes of that Meeting (posted on the CoGG website) recorded a council officer stating that the council will issue a report concerning public health issues associated with a proposed drain in the Central Road area of Drysdale. In fact, the officer had stated that the council hadn't examined those public health issues, i.e. no such report existed. DCSCA told the council that the draft Minutes were inaccurate. The council then posted a revised version on its web site that was even less accurate, attributing to the officer a whole new paragraph about public health issues that he didn't say on the night.

The draft Minutes were being used to give credence to the council's assertion that the Central Road drain is a matter of public health, rather than a way to enable Pinnacle Holdings to build a retirement village there. These assertions are being used to justify - after the event - the highly contentious 'Special Charge' of many thousands of dollars that councillors voted unanimously on 25 January to levy on each household in the Central Road area.

The extraordinary events around the draft Minutes are made even more so by the fact that the council has a 'Governance' portfolio (Cllr. Jan Farrell) and a whole 'Governance' department. Unless and until this failure in the council's governance is corrected, citizens (and councillors) can have no confidence that the events and decisions in council meetings will be reported accurately in the Minutes.

DCSCA asked the Manager of the council's Governance department to explain how these extraordinary events could have happened. In response, the Mayor, Cllr. John Mitchell, assured DCSCA by e-mail (7 February) that he would discuss the events with the council's CEO, Mr. Stephen Griffin. We replied that we would be happy to contribute positive suggestions to that discussion if it was thought appropriate; and that we looked forward to learning of the outcome.

After a month, DCSCA had heard from neither Cllr. Mitchell nor Mr. Griffin, so on 11 March we asked Cllr. Mitchell (by e-mail) how he and Mr. Griffin had decided to respond to the failure in the council's governance procedures. The Mayor's Executive Assistant replied on his behalf that day, stating that the council's 'Manager of Governance ... is currently drafting a letter of response (that) will be finalised next week and mailed to you in due course.'

That response is reminiscent of a standard mathematics exam question: 'If it takes one council Manager one week to write one letter, how long would it take two council managers to write two letters?' Your rates at work!

Further fabrications in council Minutes

After complaints that the draft Minutes of the council meeting of 25 January 2011 were inaccurate, a revised draft has been published that is even less accurate.

The draft Minutes recorded an officer saying that a report about public health issues associated with a proposed drain in Central Road 'will be made available', whereas he stated at the meeting that the council hadn't examined the issues, i.e. there was no such report.

DCSCA used the council's website to state that the draft Minutes were inaccurate (See 'Council Minutes invent report' [28 January, drycliftdays]). In response, a revised version was posted on the Council's web site that was even less accurate than the original! The revised version of the Minutes introduced entirely new material:
1. The revised version of the officer's reply ends, ‘... Council did not consider the need to commission a public health plan.’ The officer didn't say this at the meeting.
2. The revised version of the officer's reply includes a whole new paragraph: ‘Permitting development to proceed without proper servicing, which includes main drainage, in the view of the Council, would lead to public health issues. These issues may include, but not be limited to, flooding, damage to housing development, rising damp, pooling and stagnation of water, breeding of mosquitos, deposition of silt and general inconvenience to property owners.’ The officer said none of this at the meeting.

The Minutes are being used to give credence to the council's unsubstantiated allegations that the Central Road drain is really a matter of public health, rather than just a means to enable Pinnacle Holdings to build a retirement village. These unsubstantiated allegations are being used to justify - after the event - the highly contentious 'Special Charge' of many thousands of dollars that councillors voted unanimously on 25 January to levy on each household in the Central Road area.

DCSCA will continue to press the council to produce an accurate account of the officer's responses at the council meeting.

Now you see a proposal ...now you don't!

City of Greater Geelong councillors have moved swiftly to avoid discussing a controversial proposal to change the council's Special Charge scheme without public consultation.

At a council meeting on December 14, councillors were due to discuss an officers' report recommending that landowners in the Central Road area of Clifton Springs should be allowed to defer paying a 'special charge' for a new drain ... but at a cost of 5% p.a. interest. (See 'Giving with one hand, but taking away with the other' on this blog [14 December 2010].)

At that meeting, exchanges during 'Question Time' revealed three things about the officers' recommendation:
1. CoGG has entered a legal agreement without having budgeted for the cost
CoGG has entered a legal agreement with Pinnacle Living (the company that wants to build a retirement village in Central Road and needs a new drain to do so) to pay 75% share of the $1.5m cost of the drain. It hasn’t budgeted for this expense, so it intends to pay for it with a loan. It then intends to get landowners to pay off that loan plus 5% p.a. compound interest. (This would mean that a household currently facing a ‘special charge’ of $78,p000 will, after ten years, face a bill for $127,000.)

2. CoGG has changed the legal basis of its proposed ‘special charge’ for Central Road
CoGG is asserting that despite Section 163B (6.1) of the Local Government Act preventing it from proceeding with the ‘special charge’ because a majority of landowners in Central Road have objected to it, it can still proceed because Section 163B (6.2) of the Act enables it do so if a drain is required to safeguard public health. In all the reports, etc. concerning this proposal, public health has never been mentioned as a reason for proposing it; and the recommendations in the officers’ report to last night’s meeting include the following: ‘Construction of the main drain is required for the orderly, proper and safe development of the Central Road properties within the drainage catchment.’ (Recommendation B[d], p25). Where was the concern with public health when those recommendations were written?

'Public health' emerged as the rationale for the scheme soon after local landowners claimed that the scheme couldn't proceed in the face of majority opposition - as set out in Section 163B (6.1) of the Local Government Act.

3. CoGG is considering changing its 'special charges' policy without consulting the public
The proposal to institute the ‘deferred payment’ (at 5% p.a.) around the Central Road ‘special charge’ scheme sets a precedent for the operation of the ‘special charge’ scheme across the whole Council. Nonetheless, the report recommends that the council should introduce this change, despite the fact that it hasn’t been published for public scrutiny and comment. Officers stated that this was permissable because the proposal was a 'variation' to an existing policy, not a new policy.

When council reached the Central Road item on the agenda, Cllr. Andy Richards – who was formally proposing it – immediately proposed that the matter be deferred until the next council meeting (25 January 2011). Cllr. Rod Macdonald seconded the proposal. There was immediate agreement and council moved swiftly to the next item. To an outside observer, it appeared as though councillors and officers had decided – in their ‘pre-meeting meeting’ - that this item needed to be looked at again.

A final note on council procedure. An internal council Submissions Panel met earlier this year to consider objections to the Central Road ‘special charges’. The chair of that Panel, Cllr. Jan Farrell, told everyone there that objectors would receive notice of when the council would consider the Panel’s report. Landowners in Central Road have received no such notice. So if they hadn’t noticed the item on the agenda when it was published on the Friday preceeding the council meeting, they would have had no chance to question the legality of the proposal as they did last night.

Up next ... the status quo!

The authors of a Community Plan for a Springs Street Reserve heard today that the City of Greater Geelong will not meet local people’s wishes and rezone open land at Springs Street, Clifton Springs.

The authors heard the news at Geelong City Hall, at a meeting arranged by Cllr. John Doull and also attended by Mr. Jeff Wall (CoGG Manager, Corporate Services), Mr. Alan Grant (CoGG Property Advisor) and Mr. Paul Jane (CoGG Manager, Sport/Recreation).

The Community Plan proposes that CoGG rezone the open space in Springs Street, Clifton Springs, from Business to Open Space. Cllr. Doull said that the council didn't want to see the land 'locked up' as Open Space for community use because, according to an internal council estimate, it is worth more than a million dollars. While the whole area can't be developed because a creek runs through it, parts of it certainly could be.

More than 180 local people around Springs Street had said that they'd like the area retained as open space, but Mr. Grant said that local people always say that they'd like open space nearby. He said that the council asked local people for their views on the area when they published the proposal to rezone it for housing.

Mr. Wall said that the council had no plans to do anything with the land 'at present', but the Plan's authors pointed out that the council had created uncertainty about the area's future by proposing recently (in Amendment C194) to rezone the area for housing, contradicting its own Structure Plan for Drysdale & Clifton Springs.

Mr. Jane said that council policy is to create Open Space where people have none within 400 metres of their front door; and that from this perspective, the presence of the nearby Dell means that the Springs Street area needs no more open space. The Plan's authors pointed out that The Dell is inaccessible to older people, to people with disabilities, to children and to parents with prams and pushchairs.

The Plan's authors thanked Cllr. Doull for arranging the meeting and thanked him and the officers for their time. The original invitation to the meeting had said that Cllrs. Richards and Mitchell would attend, together with Mr. Stephen Griffin, Chief Executive Officer for CoGG. Each sent his apologies for absence.

Background In April and May, DCSCA members and friends developed a Community Plan for a Springs Street Reserve. (See 'Community Plan authors await councillors’ response’ [July 23] elsewhere on this blog.) On June 24, they submitted the Community Plan to local Councillors John Doull and Rod Macdonald, together with Cllr. Andy Richards (Parks and Gardens) and Cllr. John Mitchell (Mayor) and asked for a meeting to discuss the Plan. They received an acknowledgment of receipt ... and nothing else.

Subsequent attempts over seventeen weeks to 'follow-up' by asking Cllrs. Richards and Doull to indicate when the Plan's authors might receive a reply - let alone an invitation to discuss their Plan - have led to nothing, apart from a courteous e-mail from Cllr. Macdonald saying that he believes that communication on the issue should go via the ward Councillor, John Doull.

Four weeks ago, in response to formal questions from the Plan's authors at a Council meeting (September 28), Cllrs. Doull and Richards each said that a meeting between themselves and the authors of the Plan is imminent; and Cllr. Richards said that the open space in Springs Street should be formally rezoned as Open Space.

It's fourteen weeks now, Councillors!

Fourteen weeks after asking local Councillors for a meeting to discuss a Community Plan for the open space near Springs Street, the Plan's authors still have no reply.

In April and May, DCSCA members and friends developed a Community Plan for a Springs Street Reserve. (See 'Community Plan authors await councillors’ response’ [July 23] elsewhere on this blog.) On June 24, they submitted the Community Plan to local Councillors John Doull and Rod Macdonald, together with Cllr. Andy Richards (Parks and Gardens) and Cllr. John Mitchell (Mayor) and asked for a meeting to discuss the Plan. They received an acknowledgment of receipt ... and nothing else.

Subsequent attempts to 'follow-up' by asking Cllrs. Richards and Doull to indicate when the Plan's authors might receive a reply - let alone an invitation to discuss their Plan - have led to nothing, apart from a courteous e-mail from Cllr. Macdonald saying that he believes that communication on the issue should go via the ward Councillor, John Doull.

At a Council meeting on September 28, Cllrs. Doull and Richards each said that a meeting between themselves and the authors of the Community Plan is imminent; and Cllr. Richards said that the open space in Springs Street should be formally rezoned as Open Space.

Watch this (open) space!

Landowners fight a multi-million dollar drain; councillors seek 'fair and equitable outcome'

Drysdale & Clifton Springs Community Association (DCSCA) officers were among more than twenty speakers at a City of Greater Geelong (CoGG) Submissions Panel hearing yesterday at City Hall.

CoGG established the Panel to review its proposal to levy a Special Charge on landowners in the Central Road area of Clifton Springs. CoGG wants to levy the Special Charge to recoup money it has committed to a new, $1.5 million drain to serve the area. CoGG has split the cost of the drain with Melbourne-based Pinnacle Holdings, which wishes to build a retirement village in Central Road.* The Panel consisted of Cllr. Jan Farrell (Chair) and Cllrs. Rod Macdonald and John Doull, whose two wards include the area in which the proposed Special Charge would be levied. The Panel was supported by three officers from CoGG's Engineering and Planning departments.

Cllr. Farrell welcomed us to the event and thanked us for attending. She assured us that anyone who wished to speak would be heard respectfully; and she encouraged people to feel relaxed and comfortable in what were, for many people, quite intimidating surroundings. Cllr. Farrell emphasized that the Panel had no power to take decisions about the proposed Special Charge. Its function is to recommend a course of action to the full council. Essentially, the Panel will recommend one of three broad options:
1. Levy the Special Charge in its present form
2. Levy an amended form of the Special Charge
3. Abandon the proposal.

If the Panel recommends either option '1' or '2', it will also recommend how the Special Charge should be administered - including when and how people will have to pay it. Cllr. Farrell described the proposed Special Charge as 'the most complex Special Charge scheme that I've seen in my five years of chairing these Submission Panels'; and Cllr. Doull assured us that 'What we (the Panel) want is an equitable and fair outcome from the process'.

Each person who spoke to the Panel faces bills of many thousands of dollars under the proposed Special Charge, which they described as 'criminal' and 'extortionate'. All speakers said that local landowners shouldn't have to pay the proposed Special Charge until they subdivide their land to sell it at a profit. In its original submission, DCSCA suggested that a possible way forward would be to place covenants on title deeds so that the Special Charge is payable only when the value added by the drain is realised. (While it won't be affected if CoGG levies the proposed Special Charge, DCSCA made a submission concerning the proposal and spoke to the Panel because it is a significant voice in the community.)

In discussions between Panel members and CoGG officers, it became apparent that if the proposed Special Charge is implemented, it would have different effects on different landowners in the area. Some landowners would have to pay the Special Charge only if they subdivide their land. Their properties have been rezoned recently (under planning Amendment C146) from 'Rural Living' to 'Residential 1'. This means that they can - if they wish - subdivide their land and sell it under a standard set of planning rules called a Section 173 Agreement. If they subdivide, they pay the Special Charge; if they don't subdivide, they don't pay the Special Charge. In contrast, the remaining properties in the area to be served by the drain are zoned 'Rural Living'. This means that their owners can't subdivide and sell their properties. Consequently, these landowners face a Special Charge of many thousands of dollars and can't subdivide and sell their land to pay the bills. Clearly, this situation is inequitable and the Panel will have to recommend how to resolve it.

Cllr. Farrell said that the Panel will take two to three months to prepare and submit its recommendations to the council; and that the council will then discuss the recommendations. Everyone who made a submission concerning the proposal will be notified in advance of the council meeting at which the recommendations will be discussed, so that they can attend if they wish.

Anyone can ask a question to the council in the 'Question Time' section of each council meeting. To do so, dowload the form from the relevant page of the CoGG website:
www.geelongcity.vic.gov.au/council/meetings/

* For the background to this issue, see three earlier articles on the blog: Landowners to pay for developer's drains? (April 1 2010); A 'Special Charge' for developer's drains: DCSCA submission (April 12 2010); and Chasing a 'phantom value' (May 2 2010). See also DCSCA meets Cllr. Rod Macdonald (3) (12 August 2010), DCSCA meets Cllr. Rod Macdonald (2) (7 May 2010) and DCSCA meets Cllr. John Doull (2) (21 April 2010).

'Community Plan' authors await councillors' response

A month after DCSCA members and friends in the Save Our Springs Street Open Space (SOSOS) group asked local councillors to discuss The Community Plan for the Springs Street Reserve with them, they still have no answer.

On June 24, the SOSOS group submitted The Community Plan for the Springs Street Reserve to local councillors Rod Macdonald and John Doull, to councillor Andy Richards and to the Mayor, councillor John Mitchell. Their submission has been acknowledged, but SOSOS still don't know whether councillors will discuss the Plan with them.

Cllr. Andy Richards has told DCSCA that the councillors are waiting to be 'briefed' by Council officers on the issues associated with the Springs Street area. DCSCA has responded that it assumes that those Council officers will have been given a copy of The Community Plan for a Springs Street Reserve and, therefore, that they brief councillors in full knowledge of local people’s wishes; and that it hopes that their briefings contain more opportunities than challenges!

The Community Plan for the Springs Street Reserve is a significant step forward in local democracy. It has very broad local support as the result of several months hard work by the SOSOS group to discover local residents' views about how best to use the open space in Springs Street, Clifton Springs.

The creation of the Plan follows a successful campaign by SOSOS to convince the CoGG to abandon its plans to allow a housing estate on the public open space in Springs Street - one of the few stretches of open space left in the area. DCSCA officers helped local residents to challenge the proposal and over 150 local people signed a petition opposing it. A Council meeting on 23 March voted to abandon the proposal. SOSOS memberNeil McGuinness said at the time, 'Councillors Macdonald and Richards came to see us and gave us a fair hearing. They appreciated our concerns and they've taken the right decision. The land has a beautiful bay vista and would be ideal for public passive recreation and a children's playground.'

The Community Plan will benefit visitors as well as locals. It proposes to beautify the area and highlight its historical significance, enhancing the aesthetic, cultural and historical value of the nearby lookout and The Dell.

DCSCA is delighted and proud to support The Community Plan for the Springs Street Reserve. We hope that other residents will follow the example of the SOSOS group and decide among themselves what they would like to happen to their immediate enviroment.

Planning Panel Day 3

The Planning Panel's third and final day of public hearings concerned Amendment C103 almost exclusively. This Amendment re-zones land between Murradoc Road and Woodville Street, Drysdale from its current mix of 'Farming' and 'Rural Living' to 'Residential 1'. Melbourne-based Urban Land Developments owns around 60% of the land and has requested the re-zoning so that it can build a 300-house estate there.

The City of Greater Geelong's Mr. Peter Schembri had introduced Amendment C103 at the end of Day 2. However, Day 3 started with a presentation about Amendment C194 by Mr. Gary Laver, which had been postponed from Day 2. Mr. Laver appeared on behalf of several landowners who live south of Andersons Road, who want CoGG to re-zone their land from 'Farming' to 'Rural Living' and who oppose CoGG's proposal to set aside the whole area for 'Future Urban Consolidation'. (CoGG has recently withdrawn this proposal.) CoGG has said repeatedly that such re-zoning is against policy; Mr. Laver cited several instances of such re-zoning elsewhere, within CoGG's Bellarine Peninsula Strategic Plan.

At this point, CoGG's Mr. Peter Smith stated that the Bellarine Peninsula Strategic Plan is 'a community plan, not a statement of council policy'. This is in clear contrast with the Plan's alleged intent:
'The Bellarine Peninsula Strategic Plan 2006 - 2016 (The Plan) reflects a commitment by the City of Greater Geelong to understand and plan for current and future change on the Bellarine Peninsula.' ('Executive Summary', p. 8)
'The Bellarine Peninsula Strategic Plan will inform future City of Greater Geelong planning policy on the Bellarine Peninsula ...' ('Policy Framework', p. 11)

The second presentation was by Mr. Nick Tweedy, a barrister acting for Urban Land Developments. He argued that C103 was self-evidently appropriate and justified, because it implemented a recommendation of CoGG's Structure Plan for Drysdale & Clifton Springs; and he called 'expert witnesses' to argue that Amendment C103 won't create an excessive supply of land for housing; that the proposed developers' contributions to the estate's associated roads, drains, etc. are appropriate; that the estate won't interfere with the movement of stormwater through and away from the land; and that the estate won't increase local traffic significantly.

The third presentation was by Mr. Patrick Hughes on behalf of the Drysdale & Clifton Springs Community Association (DCSCA). The Association neither supports nor opposes the proposals in C103 as such, but it is critical of the process by which CoGG invited public comment on C103 and on C194. (See DCSCA's submission on this blog in the article titled, 'Re-zoning Drysdale [3]'.) In addition, the Association is concerned that Amendment C103 will create a 300-lot housing estate, but no jobs for the people who will live there. This isn't the developers' fault; it shows CoGG's lack of vision or concern about our towns' economic development. CoGG's failure is turning our towns into dormitories for Geelong and Melbourne; and the lack of adequate public transport means that increasing numbers of people are driving cars to work, increasing the pressure on our already crowded roads and, of course, increasing the emision of harmful 'greenhouse' gases.

The final presentation was by Urbis Consultants on behalf of Aldi. Currently, Amendment C103 includes provisions for access by pedestrians and cyclists from the housing estate into the service area of the proposed Aldi supermarket at the west end of Murradoc Road; and Aldi wants this provision removed.

Towards the end of the day, there were concluding remarks by Mr. Tweedie (for ULD), Mr. Smith and Mr. Schembri (for CoGG), but these added little to the presentations.

The Planning Panel will now write a report to CoGG that will recommend how to proceeed with each Amendment - C103 and C194. The report is due in eight weeks (i.e. in the week beginning 12 July) and four weeks later (i.e. in the week beginning 9 August), CoGG must publish the Panel's report and decide whether to accept some or all of its recommendations (it is under no compulsion to accept any of them). Following CoGG's decision, the matters in C103 and C194 will go to state Planning and Community Development Minister Justin Madden for a final decision.

(Image: Linda Gallus.)